I saw How to Train Your Dragon 2 yesterday, and although my initial impression was that I enjoyed it more than the first film, the more I thought about it, the more frustrated I became with several elements. So now I’m going to dump out my thoughts on HTTYD2, the sequel to a movie that I think is one of Dreamworks animation’s two masterpieces (the other being Kung Fu Panda). It’s going to read very negative, but I just want to put a disclaimer that I did dig this film, and it’s absolutely worth seeing! Also SPOILERS.

I’ll start with what I loved about the movie. Its first half is expertly paced. For the first hour, they elegantly reintroduce the main characters and their personalities and then slide into the set up for mysterious off screen conflict that had me completely engaged. The introduction of Valka, Hiccup’s mother, was emotionally powerful, and I was incredibly eager to find out more about her history. I also loved the movie’s visuals. The aged up character looks crazy cool, and basically all the cinematography is on an epic scale. The soundtrack is swelling and heroic, and although I want to fault John Powell for overusing the main theme, it is SUCH A GREAT MAIN THEME, so I can’t be that down on it. But then the movie starts answering questions to all the mysteries it’s set up, and things begin to get muddled. They don’t exactly fall apart but we’re never given definitive explanations for a lot of what transpires.

Valka quickly becomes a bewildering character. Why did she never return home? She says she tried to convince everyone in Berk, many times before she was dragon-napped, to stop fighting dragons. She then says she didn’t think she could ever change anyone’s mind about the peaceful nature of dragons if she returned after she was taken. WHAT?? That’s like an alien abductee suddenly being best buds with a peaceful alien civilization that she can leave and come back to anytime she wants, but she doesn’t think bringing a friend to see the alien civilization will be a convincing argument for its existence! Seriously, lady, bring me to your alien civilization and I will, at the very least, strongly consider believing its existence is possible. She also says she thought her family would be better off without her, although she gives no explanation as to why.

She then claims that after she was carried off by a dragon and discovered how great and peaceful dragons were, she decided to help protect them from the film’s villain, Drago Bludvist, instead of returning home. Well that might be a good reason not to return home, but it also raises a number of questions as to the relationship between Valka and Bludvist. Has this Bludvist guy been terrorizing dragons for the past 20 years? And over the past five years how has this group of dragon hunters not come across or been lead straight to Berk? The movie is kind of vague as to whether or not Bludvist is a returning threat from a previous generation or if he’s been doing his evil ‘capture dragons’ thing for 20 years, but if Valka’s been tending the dragons for all that time, then one would assume he’s been actively hunting them for the same length.

To explain Valka’s 20 year absence better, I could put together a plausible scenario where Valka fell in love with her new dragon friends very quickly, saw the damage being done to them by Bludvist, and decided helping them was a more necessary cause to focus on than returning home and raising her child. I could see how she would feel very guilty about that decision, which would explain why she’s so concerned about what Stoick may think of her when they meet up after twenty years. But this all requires a lot of mental arithmetic to piece together and is not clearly stated or depicted in the film. Maybe this is all a minor gripe, but a simple line of Valka stating to Hiccup “I wanted to come home, to be with you, but keeping the dragons safe from Bludvist was too important to me, and I knew your father would raise you well,” would have clarified it all and left me feeling a lot more satisfied with her backstory. And then, of course, after she reconnects with Stoick she’s given virtually nothing to do for the rest of the movie!!Now THAT’S frustrating! In the end, her character is wildly under utilized and seems to have no other purpose than to make Stoick’s death more tragic and show where Hiccup gets all his dragon training abilities from (which is genetic now, I guess, maybe).

Also, both Bludvist and Valka can seemingly control two alpha dragons, but it’s never stated how they both know how to do this. It’s implied they’re both using the same type of staff that they wag around in the air, but where did they get the staffs? How do they each have one? It feels like they should have more of history together than is ever stated. If she’d had any history with Bludvist, then I would’ve liked to see him acknowledge her, or exchange some dialog with her when they briefly face off to tie them together more.

So when I really get down to it, my main problem with this film is Drago Bludvist. He feels as though he should be the unifying keystone of this film, the character that brings the three major plot threads together. Those three threads are: Hiccup meeting his mother, Hiccup deciding to be the new village chief, and Bludvist’s desire to conquer the world. And, to his credit, he does do that, but it doesn’t quite come together in as impactful and satisfying a conclusion as the first film’s finale. I’m mostly disappointed at Bludvist’s lack of a back story and unclear motivation. We’re told that he wants to fight the dragon menace, but that he controls dragons, and he wants to fight dragons with dragons. But then Hiccup surmises that Bludvist just wants to conquer and subjugate people, at which point Bludvist reveals he lost an arm to a dragon attack at some point, thus showing how dragons deserve to be controlled? And that’s his motivation? He’s basically a one note villain who wants to conquer the world because ‘reasons’, and instead of being a close minded counterpoint to Hiccup’s liberal open mindedness, he ends up being just some bad guy with an ability to make dragons listen to him.

I wanted Hiccup to change Drago’s mind about his own motivations, because that’s kind of Hiccup’s thing. I wanted him to piece together how to get this stubborn jerk to be less of a jerk through logic and evidence and reason. But since Bludvist’s motivations are so vague, there’s no counterpoint Hiccup can present that could ever change Drago’s mind. You have to know someone’s point of view before you can even hope to change it. This kind of muddles the theme of the film, which I’m still unsure of. I feel like the series’ first film was based on the theme of open mindedness and seeing from other points of view, and I’m not really sure the second film needed a new theme, just to present the old one in a new way. While the first film is more about being open to new experiences, and overcoming unwarranted fears perpetuated by heresy, the second film could’ve been about letting go of conflict perpetuated by justifiable hate. It could’ve been about letting go of anger that’s actually warranted to stop perpetuated violence.

If, despite Stoick’s death, Hiccup had still pushed for Drago Bludvist to change his ways, had even beaten him in combat and, as Drago lay under Hiccup’s boot, Hiccup had continued to argue for the end of conflict without further bloodshed, that would’ve been far more powerful to me. Instead, the film’s message almost comes off as “Sometimes you just need to fight people who don’t believe in what you believe in!” Sometimes that may be a legitimate message, but I feel like this series isn’t the one that should be delivering it.

Other thoughts:

Stoick’s death is very sudden and Hiccup recovers from it extremely quickly. The music barely had time to get sad for the viking funeral before it was back to being soaring and hopeful again!

The side characters did nothing of consequence for the most part, other than establish a running gag concerning Ruffnut’s romantic non relationship with nearly every boy in the movie, which never pays off! (I did laugh at this quite a bit, in full disclosure)

Drago has a huge army in one scene, and then the next time we see him it’s GONE! Drago, you forgot to bring your army to Berk!!

The only character with a complete character arc is dragon trapper Eret, who finishes his arc just before the climax of the film, leaving him with nothing to do during the finale (just like everyone else).

Toothless murdered Hiccup’s dad!! I wish Stoick had survived but been incapacitated, and then, seeing how well Hiccup handled the crisis afterwards, could’ve run off with Valka to go travelling the world on a ‘greenpeace for dragons’ type mission, leaving Hiccup in charge of Berk. Then the happy couple could return with a dragon army or something in the sequel! BUT NO HE’S DEAD NOW SORRY.

Did Drago die at the end of the movie? Did he escape? Everything about this guy is vague, even his ultimate fate!

Watching the two Alphas battle it out in the background was super cool.

I dig that Fishlegs rides his dragon like it’s a Harley. I instantly liked him a whole lot more because of that. But then he never did anything in the whole movie!

There wasn’t a whole lot of dragon training going on in this movie!

I can’t wait for How to Train Your Dragon 3! (No, seriously, I still love this series!)

You’ve reminded me that I should really read the books! I assume they’re completely different from the movies.

Orekoya

Can’t disagree with most except this: Drago showed a veritable spectrum of crazed madness. Every character that knew of him basically said he was insane and can’t be reasoned with. He all but outright explained in his exposition the source of his craziness being the traumatic childhood experience. The dragons are living avatars that are giving his madness form and focus to bring about his actions. And I’m sorry, but sometimes you just can’t reason with, or talk sense into, the insane. His reasoning and logic seem broken because they were coming from a broken mind. It’s why I’m glad that Hiccup couldn’t reason with Drago, else it would’ve felt like a cheap cop out and would’ve made him out to be even more of a Mary-Sue than he already was.

http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

Hm… Well, the thing that made Hiccup not a mary sue in the first movie was that he, in fact, was a terrible warrior, making him far from perfect. I do think Hiccup comes off as a Gary Stu in HTTYD2 because they don’t play up any of his weaknesses! Although, if he’s supposed to be a great warrior in 2, they never make a big deal out of it. Everyone seems to look up to him because he’s able to find solutions to problems through logic and reason. I’m not 100% certain what his arc was in the movie, other than to go from wanting to reason through his problems to realizing sometimes that isn’t an option. And like I said, that’s not necessarily a bad message, but it seems to run counter to the first movie’s message of being more open minded and seeing others’ points of view.

I don’t disagree with you that Drago’s crazy, and now that you’ve got me thinking about it, I would’ve loved to see Hiccup convince Drago’s followers of how deranged and wrong Drago’s way of thinking is, and strip Drago of his power by reasoning with the people who do his bidding. Maybe after Stoick’s death, Hiccup could’ve realized how impossible reasoning with Drago was, and Hiccup would lose all hope, but his mother could realize they can ride the baby dragons back to Berk. So they get back, everyone jumps into the fight to stop Drago, except Hiccup’s still like “all hope is lost, we’re not strong enough to stop this man and his huge army and no one can reason with him!” but then Hiccup realizes that it’s not Drago he needs to convince, but those that give him power, so he flies past Drago and somehow convinces part or all of his army (maybe with a rousing speech) that what they’re doing is wrong, and gets them to hesitate in their actions, or stop taking orders.That would actually be very in line with the themes of the first film: If you can’t reason with someone, reason with those who support him.

GRANTED, Drago didn’t HAVE his army when he attacked Berk, but I think you get the idea. In the end, Hiccup’s ultimate victory in the film is his ability to break Toothless of his brainwashing, which is so painfully cliche that I kind of cringed. I just wanted Hiccup to solve the problem using his strength of reason, since he’s supposed to be an unimpressive fighter.

Orekoya

Well, they kinda did have that arc of convincing his followers in a shorter version with Eret, the head of the dragon hunters. Honestly though the worst gripe I have is the whole “take care of your own” tribal mentality crap that was spewed and felt so out of place. Even more jarring when it came from Valka, who (however noble intentions) abandoned her own son. If she had to give such a message, it should’ve at least been something along the lines of “There are some things you just can’t fix and those times you just have to stop whatever is causing damage before it can cause more.” It would’ve been the better way to send that message and wouldn’t have made her look like a hypocrite. He could’ve brush it off as the same way saying that’s the reasoning that made vikings and dragons fought in the first place then kept going forward as he did in the movie.

Jonathan B

I don’t have a difficulty with the idea of Hiccup talking to Drago’s followers. But that would not “strip Drago of his power by reasoning with the people who do his bidding.” His real power was the dragons, and his dominance of the alpha. The movie already stripped him of his men by just not drawing them at Berk and it mattered little to the final fight, after all. 😉

Most of the growth in 2 is driven not by reason but by love and loyalty. Stoick’s love for his wife, Toothless’ love for Hiccup, Hiccup’s love for Berk…lots of different connections. One thing that bothered me because of that, though I understood the story focus on the main pair, was that none of the other dragons had any apparent great struggling attempt to overcome the brainwashing except Toothless. Surely some of them were deeply devoted to their riders too.

Kel

I was also glad Hiccup couldn’t reason with Drago. It’s more realistic.

Renadt

Drago may have started with somewhat good intentions, but the problem lies when he learned how to control dragons- by force and fear. He realized that he could also control people by force and fear. Power corrupts, and Drago was very powerful. Drago may still have believed that he was humanity’s savior to a point, but was still consumed by the fear of his childhood trauma, that any dragon not under his control could hurt him. There was no reasoning with Drago. This is also the same problem when atheists debate believers- you cannot trump emotion, and believers are very emotional.

Toothless was effectively brainwashed when he killed Stoick. He could do nothing outside of the command at that point. It was the turning point for Hiccup. Hiccup was in grief over his father, and deep down even knew that Toothless was under another’s control, but lashed out at Toothless out of anger, the wrong target. When Toothless was captured, however, it brought Hiccup’s focus back to Drago.

Hiccup had to push his grief aside for the sake of his village. That is the mark of a true leader- one who puts the needs of the new in front of their own feelings.

http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

I would say Hiccup barely grieved at all, which was one of the things that bugged me in the movie. And although you compare Drago to an unwavering believer, it’s never expressly stated what he believes in specifically, it’s all kind of inferred. There’s a lot of interpretation to the film, and not a lot of concrete statement as to what’s going on in the characters’ heads. I think a movie like this deserves clearer themes and a more well realized arc. It’s just a little too muddled compared to how clearly defined the first film was.

Renadt

He didn’t have time to grieve at that point. Hiccup had to quickly put his feelings aside for the sake of his village, which Drago was moving to invade. Drago believed in power, and his power over dragons. This was the central theme of the movie, power versus reason. Another example of this concept is found in Final Fantasy VIII, in the Fisherman’s Wharf. Galbadian forces land on the city looking for Ellone (Elle), and the residents want to try to reason with the Galbadians. The forces don’t care about the residents’ request, and proceed to begin demolition of the wharf. Luckily, Squall and Co. are there in time to save the wharf. Squall then makes a soliloquy about how people like him are needed to protect those who want peace from those who want control. Sometimes fighting cannot be avoided, and some people are rotten to the core.

jwkovell

I’ll pipe in just to say that I believe Hiccup’s grieving was undercut buy the goofy riding on baby dragons scene.

Sure, the writers probably felt a brief emotional reprieve was in order – given that this is still a kid-friendly movie – but it plays counter to the more expected mix of action-induced urgency and grief-stricken paralysis.

This is the point where Hiccup could be most forgiven for falling to despair – only to be propped up by his friends. Despair would then turn to determination – not goofy “woohoo baby dragons!”

Kel

I was also disappointed with what I thought was the overly lighthearted tone at the end. But, like you, I also attributed this to the fact that it is a ultimately a kids movie and the writers did it with this in mind. I’m certain that Hiccup will have to deal with his father’s death in a more profound way in the next installment. Perhaps they wanted to wait until then to address it more fully.

I was also a little disappointed that the story came to a conclusion at all. After they lose Stoick, the despair and hopelessness they all felt was almost tangible. I thought it was going to end on a cliffhanger somewhere around that point, with Hiccup vowing to win the fight as they all headed into a period of darkness, danger, and the unknown. I thought the final battle was a bit anticlimactic and ended too quickly. I thought there was some real potential to take a more in depth look at the villain in the the inevitable third movie, and give him a real backstory. Again, it’s a kids movie, so they must have felt they had to make a ‘happy’ ending.

Still, keeping the people of Berk in such a vulnerable position at the end would have raised the stakes and the potential for an epic face-off in the next film. Keeping their moment of defeat so short-lived makes the danger feel less real. Next time it happens, I’ll have a harder time being invested because I won’t have any real fear that Hiccup won’t save the day. Obviously, we all know that he will eventually. But it’s still nice to have doubt and the belief that he could fail. Not completely fail, but to falter in ways that have significant consequences.

Overall, I still loved the movie and thought it was great, but I feel it really missed a chance to be bold and do something fairly unprecedented for an animated film. I personally feel that kids stories shouldn’t all be feel-good with no darkness at all. Sorry for the long rant. I’m probably way overthinking it, but I can’t help it sometimes.

Jonathan B

I feel like it should be noted that any viewing of internet religion arguments will tell you there are plenty of atheists who are equally emotional. And there are calm, reasonable believers out there as well. Neither side has a monopoly on either reason or emotion.

Not trying to trigger off an actual religion debate, just saying there are logical and illogical people and reason-based and emotion-based people on both sides of most issues, religion included.

ColdFusion

I just can’t get past the ugly faces and the doofy babyish dragons.

Jonathan B

Definitely agree with you about the lack of good use of Valka in the ending and the lack of a fuller explanation of her choice not to go back. That was one of the real weak points for me, that this veteran fighter does nothing of consequence in the ending.

D.J.

I’m a little late but I just saw the movie and one thing caught my attention…
Toothless killed an alpha in the first movie, wouldn’t that make Toothless an alpha as well?
That being said, he can’t be controlled by an alpha… and very much of the story falls apart after that…

http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

Definitely a movie that starts out strong and then drops the ball 2/3rd of the way through! It is, unfortunately, a good movie that could’ve been great.

Seb

Hmm? But he didn’t defeat an alpha in the first movie.

Kayla Thomas

Thank you for this! You’ve just summed up everything I didn’t like about the movie! I started out feeling real great, and then halfway through…it just sorta rushed towards the ending and anticlimactic battle. I never really got WHY Drago wanted to conquer the world. Seems like Generic Villain Reasons 101, to just take over the world for…reasons.

In addition to all those things you listed, one thing that bothered me was Astrid’s fatal mistake in trying to intimidate Drago where she ended up provoking him into attacking Valka’s nest, and then Berk so much sooner than he probably would have. She inadvertently caused Stoick’s death, the good Bewilderbeast’s death, and then the attack on Berk. Sure, Drago was going to attack anyway, but they would have had time to prepare if she hadn’t goaded him into it just that much sooner. But then they never address this, or have her show an ounce of regret of what her actions caused. That for me was a major flaw with the movie.

But I agree that despite all these things, it was still a pretty good movie.

Crystal Grubb

Mabey with a slight wierd chance stoick may come back from the simingly dead. Not as a ghost of course but alive and well. Thats what i would like to see. Any one else agree?

Crystal Grubb

I know they wanted a bigger role forp but theres so much for him to learn from his dad. Mabey they could begin to see eye to eye.

Crystal Grubb

Now ive read the books and yea they are not like the movies but in the books toothless is in a coma when every one but hiccup beleives hes dead and hiccup saves toothless, now i dont know if they will do somerhing simmular to his dad for number three in the movies but his voice actor comes back for the third act. As for the tie in for the books id like to see hiccup as a dragon guardian not like those in the book but a protecter on an island hidden will with all the residence of berk. I also would say that he would be granted a long life but not invincable and he finds the girl later who would write the books to httyd. The law s state he cannot tell her where the dragons are hiding but informs her that they were no longer on berk and the only dragon that gets accidently shown to her was a terrible terror small and green. Hiccup tells her small stories that deviate from what really happened and even his friends would act out the stories. Then at some point hiccup would part ways with her thus never telling her where the dragons are except simply they are out there. Thats how i would end a part 3 or 4.

Seb

Regarding Valka’s motivation… I can feel there is some complex reason for it, it, but yes, that was partly why she didn’t return. In the original script (in which she was also the antagonist), she was completely fanatical about protecting dragons, and clearly valued them over people. These traits carried over to her canonical version, and I theorise she simply couldn’t leave the dragons with all the dangers lurking around (making your assumption a likely scenario). Her heart lay with the new home. She also completely abandoned Berk, believing without doubt that minds couldn’t be changed, which is a huge fault on her part. Her family was better off without her, as she put it, because she couldn’t see the possibility of coexistence. She had bad memories of the location, and was quite the oddball. This does not exactly motivate someone to visit their old home where rejection, from her perspective, was inevitable, and fanaticism ruled over reason.This only contributes to making her character interesting. She continues with the extreme belief right up to the point when her character is arced, after spending some time with Hiccup and reuniting with her husband.

How they control the alphas? Easily explained in outside sources. Drago encountered a Bewilderbeast hatchling on one of his earliest raids. He abused the animal using force and intimidation, projecting fear and a sense of domination onto it. He forged it into a blind follower, with the stick waving and shouting as a method to get the dragon’s attention and communicate. The dragons in this series could be seen as “empathic mirrors” – they reflect the traits you project on them. Likely, Valka came to even terms with her Bewilderbeast (perhaps in a similar way to how Hiccup does with dragons). She was a vigilante and was welcomed as a valuable part of the nest – not as its ruler. Therefore, she was trusted.

Why is Drago such an issue? His character arc is hardly over.
He’s introduced as an psychotic, fearsome enemy, and I think the way it was done makes him quite the ominous and intimidating foe. Considering he wasn’t meant to be introduced until the third movie, he was nicely set up for future events. He is vague, yes, and I got the sense of wanting to know more about him in the end, but that’s fine. There’s still another film to clear up his motivations, and when that happens we’ll get an “aha” moment.

Drago is a psychotic creep that can’t be reasoned with. That’s the kind of vibe I got with him. I feel that the idea of this film is “what can you do if another’s mind cannot change?” We got plenty enough open-mindedness and mind-changing in the TV series. This was a fascinating take that’s yet to be over.

Stoick’s death was handled well, but that’s an issue of taste really. The pace of this film is rather fast, which is forgiveable considering the big changes that had to be make half way into production.

I’d love to express my counter-thoughts to you other points, but I’m really bored with writing right now and I think I got to all the points regarding the actual core of the film 😛 And I doubt anyone will even see this comment, so there’s not much point to me continuing. Otherwise I’d love to get into a discussion, as I’ve never had a real one about anything!

http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

All good points, Seb, I’m glad you shared them! And I just want to restate that I did enjoy the movie! I just felt its narrative was weaker than the first film.

Sixy

Hi! Is there a way to get the original script? I’m really interested in it and what kind of changes were to be made. I have the feeling that this movie’s first half is the first half of a completely different movie.

Syrus Orelio

my biggest gripe is that Valka’s NEVER seen a Night Fury, ‘Toothless could well be the last of his kind’ yet somehow magically just like that she knows, just knows how to trigger Toothless’ back fins just like that when Hiccup has been living with him the ‘probably last of his kind’ and didn’t discover it >< say what

now if Valka had met a night fury but it had died, I could understand her knowing that but it's a secret of the Night Fury a species she's never seen and barely mets and she just knows, if anyone discovered that in these circumstances it should have been Hiccup who's spent years with Toothless I mean seriously thy didn't even have Valka discover this secret she just knows it out of nowhere

I've had people argue well there' probably another similar species that has something similiar but she was stressing how each species has it's secret and this is the Night Fury secret so wt bleeding f!?

Connor Fleming

It’s obvious that she’s met a few night furies before. She knows how old Toothless is, and knows the fin thing because she’s seen and done it before. Toothless obviously had parents, maybe siblings, at some point. She’s basically just saying “holy crap haven’t seen one of these in aaagggeeessss he might be the last one!”

Syrus Orelio

no she said ‘I’ve never seen a night fury before, he may very well be the last of his kind’ so she hasn’t seen a night fury yet knows

her living with dragons makes her the first rider which kind of takes away hiccup’s special thing

Hiccup ‘I’m the first viking in history who wouldn’t kill a dragon’
Astrid ‘first to ride one though’

edit: my brother in law pointed out something recently that I completely missed

the helmets hiccup and his dad wear in HTTYD are ‘a matching set of Valka’s breast covers’ yet her breasts are waaay too small for them

Jazz4Life

The Dragon Hunters attacked Berk several times. If you watch Race to the Edge, it fills in the gap quite nicely. There were other Villains too other than Drago. Viggo was my personal favorite Villain. Watch the show, it’s worth it!

Reyna Farris

My daughter watches this allot, and normally I enjoy it. But your right, no one holds her accountable for abandoning her child, and she doesn’t even have to offer a good reason why. I’m shocked that Hiccup is not more traumatized by this mind ****. Race to the edge series helps lead up to the main villain, but doesn’t address any real parent issues (which I feel it does fall short, apparently most parents are dead or just cool with there kids are waging war on deadly monsters.)

What doesn’t make sense is the queen and alpha male, so the queen is born and is fed other dragons until she’s big enough to threaten them herself? What purpose does this serve? The male protects them, but not from a queen, and apparently you can just become an alpha and gain mysterious powers by domination? Since the two don’t appear to breed how do they even exist? Night Furys don’t even seem native to the area, since nearly everys dragon breeding or burial ground has been found but them, so how does anyone know for sure? It’s a very broad statement, but mom seems to know but Hiccup didn’t seem to ask a single question about this very important thing.I find that unlike him.

Joelle Personett

Go on Netflix, watch the HTTYD animated series. It clears up so much! It’s set between 1 and 2.